[Cross]

Originally Posted by Cross

It’s a classic case of German over-engineering

Originally Posted by Brian61

Excuse me but your bias is showing.

LOL I’m not the one who wants German uber guns, I merely want equality for all nations with similar weapons.
Which demonstrates bias?

Also, at the same time I posted about the German MG’s I also posted four British (full disclosure: I’m British ) OOB suggestions. Among those I recommended:

• Lowering a Brit HQ primary weapon range from 400yds to 150yds
• Removing top armour from a Brit AFV
• Lowering a Brit MG range from 1500 to 600
• Lowering a Brit AAMG range from 1500 to 1200

Hmmm…where’s the bias?

Originally Posted by Brian61

If you are going to say 'well documented' and 'primary source' then provide references.

Reference 1
April 1943 US War Dept document TM E9-206A page 60:
Maximum range of the MG34 with telescopic sight as 3800 yards (3475m)

This is best range I’ve seen in a primary document.
That page also says the average velocity with ball ammunition was measured at 2380 fps.

The MG42 uses same ammo, with shorter barrel and less muzzle velocity, so we can’t expect a better range from the MG42.

More typical is an effective range of 2000-2500 yards

Reference 2
March 1945 US War Dept RESTRICTED Handbook on German Weapons TM E30-451, pages VII-7 and VII-8

says maximum effective range for both the MG34 and MG42 as a tripod mounted heavy machinegun is 2000 – 2500 yards
(1829-2286m)
Says the leaf sight goes up to 2000m (2187yds)

Reference 3
British Army, Small Arms Training
Vol I , .303-inch Machien Gun, Part I, 1941

The range drum, graduated in 100s of yards up to 4,500 yards.
Up to 400 yards one click represents 100 yards. Over 400 yards one click represents 50 yards.

Reference 4
Canadian Army – Small Arms and Machine Guns E 500 RESTRICTED May 1945, page 1

Extreme range – 4,500 yards (4,115m)

Tangent Sight No. 2 MkI for Mk 7 ammo 100 to 2900 yds
Tangent Sight No. 2 Mk2 for Mk 8z ammo 100 to 3700 yds


Reference 5
.300 Vickers Machine Gun, Gale and Polden, 1941, reproduced from Home Guard Manual,
page 25:
Photo of Leaf Sight up to 2400 yards (2187m)

Page 5: Muzzel velocity:
.303 Mk VII ammo 2440 fps
.300 M I ammo 2700 fps

Originally Posted by Brian61

There is a difference between maximum range that a bullet may travel and what is considered the maximum effective range for combat purposes. With an automatic weapon the maximum effective range is dependent on accuracy and rate of fire as well as the range of the round itself. Maximum effective range is probabilistic in nature and downrange shot pattern is indeed a factor.

I agree, and have alluded to that several times.

Originally Posted by Brian61

While I don't have the references at hand, there are numerous accounts of machine guns being used in the indirect fire role during WWII. I believe the UK, at least, provided training to machine gun crews for the indirect fire role. As to how effective they were, it seems to have been mostly suppressive in nature rather than a significant source of casualties.

I agree, indirect fire should be suppressive, which is why I’ve said I think we should not have indirect HMG fire except as Z-fire.

Originally Posted by Cross

Currently, the MG34 and MG42 HMGs get these bonuses:

Accuracy bonus of +5
Double HE Kill and
Ammunition loadout bonus of x2
Range bonus of extra 33%
Faster move speed of 5 (other HMGs move 4)

Which do you think they should get and why?
Cross

Originally Posted by Brian61

All of them.

Really? Some may see this as revealing a bias.

Originally Posted by Brian61

The weapon stats in the OOBs are the product of over 12 years of hashing and rehashing by every grognard and gearhead who has shown a passing interest. They are as near to being 'correct' as they are going to get given the limitations of the underlying game engine and the nature of the abstractions used in the game model.

If we use your logic then there’s no point in anyone pointing out any more OOB improvements or corrections because they’ve all been ‘perfected’ already! Come on Brian, surely you’re more familiar with the OOB than that?

Originally Posted by Brian61

Frankly, in my opinion, it is about ten years too late to be refactoring weapon stats. Even if in the doubtful case that you are right and everyone else for the past decade and a half has been wrong, to begin making fundamental large scale changes now would threaten to invalidate the assumptions made by designers of many earlier scenarios and campaigns. If you want to see where that leads, take a look at SPWAW today.

I disagree. The SPWW2 OOB have been improved every year for the last 10 years; partly because people like me are willing to point out errors and inconsistencies. And it’s unfair to try and characterize this as a case of me being right and everyone else for the past decade and a half has been wrong.
Another thing is that sources have got better over the last ten years, with many new OOB and WWII documents increasingly available online.

Originally Posted by Brian61

PS: If you, or anyone else, is firmly convinced of a need for a refactoring of weapon stats and/or sweeping changes to unit data, then why not create a mod consisting of a new OOB set?

I’m hardly suggesting “sweeping changes to unit data”! Merely pointing out a potential range issue on two weapons! What’s wrong with discussing these weapons and possibly improving the vanilla OOB?

Alright Brian, I’ve referenced the primary document evidence you requested for Vickers, MG34 and MG42 ranges, but I still haven't seen any evidence for your views?

Cross